So, I had hoped to respond to Ms Cell Machine’s comment here, but apparently Halstead is still afraid of my knowledge, wisdom, and/or cock, so here it is:
Reconstructed Polytheism is ‘new’ but not as ‘new’ as many Wiccans, Wiccanate Neopagans, and others want people to believe. Sannion gave a decent taste of the recon timeline, but only a taste: http://thehouseofvines.com/2014/01/24/and-people-wonder-why-theres-conflict/ I’ve been working on something more thorough.
The problem is, Reconstructed Polytheism shares many traits that Zell describes in his ‘paganism’ that pre-dated the arrival of Wicca in the States and shares much of the ‘legacy’ that Halstead is claiming for ‘Neo-Paganism’, while sharing a clearer connection to the ancients than either, especially by those among us who put the Gods and Goddesses first. Reconstructed Polytheism isn’t a ‘Humanism enhanced with the language of Theism’, it’s more a ‘Theism that Humanists have a bone for’ as evidenced by the very clear desire of atheists and secular humanists to paint extremely pious ancient figures, such as Pythagoras, Epicurus, Socrates, Hypatia, etc… as one of ‘theirs’.
As for the ‘reclaimation’ of the term ‘Neo-Pagan’, certainly that would be the birthright of Classicists, especially the agnostic and ambiguously theistic, including Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Oscar Wilde, and the Uranian poets, non? After all, such were, indeed, the first such sorts to be called that, and clearly had a better understanding of the gods than most of the people using the term and applying it to their piss-poor understanding of Jungian psychology.